OK, there has been a mass shooting in Colorado and a dozen people are dead. Now because this is in a movie theatre, Roger Ebert has claimed this as his turf simply because he is a movie reviewer and has made a pretty good living sitting on his ass watching Hollywood creations and then getting on TV and talking about them.
Of course, I do not believe that Ebert goes to theaters to review the movies he talks about on the boob tube. He probably has private showings as it is likely in the best interests of the movie people to give him first shot at seeing it so he can be informed when the movie actually comes out. While possible, I seriously doubt that you are likely to be find yourself sitting next to Roger Ebert at the local Bijou as he munches popcorn and watches the show.
Yet because the Colorado shooting took place in a damned movie theater, Ebert has come forth to give his take on the shooting and goes so far to say that the shooting proves that concealed carry of handguns is useless and should not be allowed.
Interesting. Where were the concealed firearms in the theater? I'd have to say there most likely were not a whole lot of them because the theater has a no firearms policy. The company that runs the theater does not permit people with firearms licenses permits to enter the theater.
They seem to believe that having such a policy will protect their patrons from the forces of evil.
We've all seen it before, "These premises protected by this sign." seems to be a pretty common policy in places. Of course, one seldom sees the sign in several languages so everyone can read it.
Of course it is a damned shame that the gunman didn't take the time to read the sign before he entered the premises or maybe he would have decided that murdering a dozen people might get him in trouble or something along these lines. Yeah. Right.
For some odd reason the rules didn't get obeyed. Whoda thought?
Of course, in the op-ed piece Ebert put in the NY Times, there was a spiel about a guy packing a pistol.
"Why do you carry a gun?" he was asked.
"Because I live in a dangerous neighborhood," he replied.
"It would be safer if you moved."
I suppose it would, but I'd just bet the guy packing the piece can't afford to move to the big, safe house in a gated community on the hill somewhere. Unlike the big shot celebs that run their mouths and sit on their asses in theaters and big buildings making the big bucks, this guy is probably one of the guys that actually gets OFF of his ass and BUILDS the buildings these big shots sit in.
I suppose that the guy carrying the piece could move. He could just come to work roaring drunk and do something cataclysmic, destroy something expensive like a bulldozer and get fired. Then he could blame his problem on his disabling alcoholism and go out on disability and get on the government tit. After that he could apply for Section 8 government housing and get a nicer place to live in a nicer part of town and not feel the need to carry a gun.
While unlikely, it would be poetic justice to see this poor bastard move in right next to Ebert. The moaning, wailing and gnashing of teeth is pretty likely to be epic because most people like that have a 'not in my back yard' attitude.
While everyone has the right to speak out and I will support that right, I wish that people like Ebert that have little in common with the average guy would just shut the hell up. I get tired of people like them running their mouths over things that they do not understand. You can bet your ass that if Ebert thought his life was in danger he would hire some sort of armed bodyguard. After all, he can afford it. He has a job making big bucks for sitting on his ass all day. The guy out busting his to make ends meet simply can not afford a hired guard. He's on his own.
Then again, I didn't see Roger Ebert offering to open his wallet and offer the help the guy packing the gun a better, safer place to live, either. Guys like him ought to either put up or shut up. They're not part of the solution, they're part of the problem.
In other news, I saw an interview with Ice-T.
While I am not a rap guy by a long shot, Ice-T seems to get it.
In his interview he pointed out that the 2nd Amendment was put there to give the average guy acess to weapons to be used against tyranny.
There is a lot to be said there because governments gone bad do not murder people by the tens or even hundreds. They murder people by the thousands and millions.
If you add up all of the murders commmitted in the 20th century you will find that the murders committed by individuals do not even begin to make up a fraction of the murders committed by governments gone bad. Every single time this has happened it has been preceded by a disarmament of the people, generally under the guise of public safety.
There will always be incidents like the one that took place in Colorado. In a free society there will always be people like that that are unbalanced. It is the price we pay for freedom. Yes, it does suck. Yes it is expensive. The incident in Colorado cost about a dozen people their lives and six time that were severely injured. This does not take into consideration the price that will be paid in mental anguish.
Still, when you add this up and the totals come in you can look at what it would cost by letting the government run wild without the ultimate check. When you do that and put it into cold, hard numbers, you begin to realize that it is not as expensive as it looks.
Anyone that has taken the time to read history has seen that just before every major genocide that has taken place in the world in the 20th century has been preceeded by gun control.
An awful lot of people do not know the beginnings of gun control in the United States.
The first gun control laws were put in effect shortly after the Civil War to keep the recently freed blacks from having access to firearms. Most of these laws were passed by the Blue Dog Democrats.
my other blog is: http://officerpiccolo.blogspot.com/ http://piccolosbutler.blogspot.com/